Space and positioning in media discourse: A critical discourse analysis of the representation of econd mendment court cases in The New York Times
Date
2013-04-11
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Doktoritöö keskmes on Ühendriikide põhiseaduse teine parandus, mis kurikuulsalt ebaselges sõnastuses nimetab relvaõigused põhiseadusliku kaitse alla käivaiks. Ühendriikide ühiskonnas on relvaõiguste teema sageli avalikkuse kõrgendatud tähelepanu all, eriti traagiliste sündmuste puhul nagu tulistamine Newtowni linnas 2012. aasta detsembris. Relvaõiguste teema on tugevalt ideoloogiline ja viib ägedate vaidlusteni, kus põrkuvad erinevad nägemused valitsuse ja indiviidi õigustest ja kohustustest. Need õigused ja kohustused taanduvad põhiseaduslikule alusele ning siin saab oluliseks kohtute ja eriti Ühendriikide Ülemkohtu arvamus. Ülemkohus on teist põhiseadusparandust kitsalt käsitlenud kolme kohtuasja raames: United States v. Miller (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ja McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Doktoritöö korpuse moodustavad ajalehe The New York Times uudisartiklid, mis käsitlevad antud kohtuotsuseid. Meediakajastus on oluline, sest vaid väike osa avalikkusest loeb kohtuotsuste endi tekste – enamik usaldab meedia vahendavat rolli. Doktoritöö analüüsib, kuidas uudisartiklid kajastavad ühiskondlikku debatti põhiseaduslike relvaõiguste üle, tuues kokku Ülemkohtu ja kohtunike, huvigruppide, ametnike ja poliitikute jt toimijate hääled ja vaatenurgad. Nende koosluses luuakse diskursusruum, mis on keeruliste ühiskondlike tingimuste ja suhete valikuline kajastus. Analüüs keskendub ruumi ja positsioneerimise mõistetele ja seda nii ühiskondlikul kui tekstitasandil kriitilise diskursusanalüüsi töövahendeid rakendades. Analüüs näitab, et teise põhiseadusparanduse arutelu mõjutab tugevalt ajalooline kontekst ja et selle drastiliselt muutunud tõlgendamine on tugevalt seotud võimuhierarhiatega ja autoriteetsete diskursusruumidega Ühendriikides.
The dissertation focuses on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the ambiguous wording of which lists the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights are often at the centre of public debates in the US, especially in connection with tragic events such as the Newtown shooting in December, 2012. The topic of gun rights is highly ideological and leads to heated arguments in which different views on the rights of the government and the individual come into conflict. These rights are based on the Constitution which makes the Supreme Court of the US a major voice in the debates. The Supreme Court has narrowly discussed the amendment in three court cases: United States v. Miller (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The corpus of the dissertation includes news articles from The New York Times that report the three court cases. They form a very important representation, as the public will mostly rely on the media not read the court decisions. The analysis explores how the articles represent the constitutional debates by bringing together the voices and perspectives of the Supreme Court and its justices, interest groups, officials, politicians and so on. In their joint mapping, a discourse space is set up and this reflects the complex social circumstances and relationships in a selective manner. The analysis focuses on the notions of space and positioning both on a social and textual level by making use of the tools provided by Critical Discourse Analysis. The dissertation illustrates how the constitutional debates are strongly shaped by the historical context and how drastic shifts in how the Second Amendment is read have greatly to do with the power hierarchies and authoritative discourse spaces in the United States.
The dissertation focuses on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the ambiguous wording of which lists the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights are often at the centre of public debates in the US, especially in connection with tragic events such as the Newtown shooting in December, 2012. The topic of gun rights is highly ideological and leads to heated arguments in which different views on the rights of the government and the individual come into conflict. These rights are based on the Constitution which makes the Supreme Court of the US a major voice in the debates. The Supreme Court has narrowly discussed the amendment in three court cases: United States v. Miller (1939), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The corpus of the dissertation includes news articles from The New York Times that report the three court cases. They form a very important representation, as the public will mostly rely on the media not read the court decisions. The analysis explores how the articles represent the constitutional debates by bringing together the voices and perspectives of the Supreme Court and its justices, interest groups, officials, politicians and so on. In their joint mapping, a discourse space is set up and this reflects the complex social circumstances and relationships in a selective manner. The analysis focuses on the notions of space and positioning both on a social and textual level by making use of the tools provided by Critical Discourse Analysis. The dissertation illustrates how the constitutional debates are strongly shaped by the historical context and how drastic shifts in how the Second Amendment is read have greatly to do with the power hierarchies and authoritative discourse spaces in the United States.
Description
Keywords
kriitiline diskursusanalüüs, õigusloome, keelekasutus, kohtuasjad, tekstianalüüs, representatsioon, meedia, Ameerika Ühendriigid, inglise keel, critical discourse analysis, lawmaking, language usage, court cases, textual analysis, representation, media, United States, English, New York Times